BLOGAugust 01, 2017

Heartbreaking: Glenn Sheds Tears With Mother Whose Children Were Taken by the State

Oregon couple Amy Fabbrini and Eric Ziegler lost custody of their son Christopher about four years ago, shortly after he was born. Fabbrini gave birth to their second son in February --- and he was taken by the Department of Human Services before leaving the hospital. Fabbrini and Ziegler claim the state took these actions because of their low IQ.

Tuesday on radio, Glenn spoke with Fabbrini and her advocate Sherrene Hagenbach, who was appointed by the state as a volunteer supervisor during the couple's visits with their children. Hagenbach was relieved of her position after siding with the couple. She's on record as saying there's "no sign of abuse" and that Fabbrini is "perfectly qualified to have and hold and love her children."

"I am so bothered by this story. I think you will be, too," Glenn said.

The story unexpectedly hit Glenn hard.

"I don't know what you expected her to sound like, but she sounded perfectly normal to me. She is a mother who loves her children. Sorry this . . . hits close to home. I have a daughter with cerebral palsy who is a wonderful . . . and would make the best mother ever," Glenn said emotionally, following the interview with Fabbrini.

The couple has gone through rigorous testing to prove their competency, but their children remain in foster care, awaiting adoption.

TAKE ACTION

To learn more or get involved:

• Visit Sherrene Hagenbach online at aktionnow.com

• SIGN THE PETITION to get Christopher and Hunter back in their parents' care

• DONATE via GoFundMe to assist with the family's legal expenses

GLENN: In light of Charlie Gard and now Alfie Evans, and in the past, it was Justine Pelletier, governments and hospitals are taking children from their parents. And we want to make sure that you are aware of this. We welcome Sherrene Hagenbach, her mentor, and Amy Fabbrini, the mother who is going through this in Oregon. Amy, how are you?

AMY: I'm doing good. Thank you.

GLENN: Tell me -- tell me what's happening to you and what's happening to your children.

AMY: So Christopher, my oldest, he was taken -- he was taken into CPS custody almost four years ago. And we have been fighting the state for almost four years now to get him back, trying to represent him as best as we can, trying to get our story out there, trying to get a lawyer, an attorney that will represent us in court so we can get our -- get Christopher back. We have a trial coming up in December to terminate our rights for Christopher.

And then Hunter, he was born in February. He was two days old. CPS came. Took him right from the hospital. I didn't even get to bring him home. So since then, we've been fighting for him as well. We've been getting our story out there to try and find someone that can represent us so we can go up against the state to get our kids back. And we just -- we want our story out there so they know that you can get your kids back.

GLENN: Amy, are -- are you a good mom?

AMY: I'm a wonderful mother. I love my boys. I would do anything for my boys.

GLENN: Sorry. This has caught me off guard. I have a daughter of special needs. And so this has caught me off guard. I'm sorry to be emotional with you.

What does it feel like to now have to be on national radio with people discussing your IQ and saying that you're not smart enough to be a mom?

AMY: It's -- it's been hard. But it's worth it to get my story out there so that people know that you can get your kids back, as long as you just fight. Fight for everything you have because your kids are worth it.

PAT: Has a lawyer stepped up to help you, yet, Amy?

AMY: I have a court-appointed attorney and an appeals attorney. But I would like to see if I could find someone that's out of state that can better represent me.

GLENN: Sherrene.

SHERRENE: Hi. I'm doing good. Thank you.

GLENN: You worked for the state of Oregon?

SHERRENE: So, yes. Actually, I was a volunteer. So I'm a professional mediator by trade. And I went there to just volunteer my time in the community. And because of my credentials and education, they put me in the role of a caseworker that came into the home and observed visitations with the children.

GLENN: What did you observe?

SHERRENE: Well, first, I should preface this with I've had over 20 years' experience working with children, youth, and families.

So my undergrad is in psychology. And I have, you know, a ton of certificates regarding safety and health and abuse. And what I found when I came into the home is a home. I found two parents that just loved their child. It was just Christopher at the time. It was last summer.

And definitely, my first impression was that Amy, in particular, didn't speak to me very much.

GLENN: Didn't --

SHERRENE: She was very insecure.

GLENN: She didn't, what?

SHERRENE: She didn't speak with me at first. It took about four weeks at least to gain her trust in me as a caseworker.

And once she felt comfortable with me in the home, you know, it was -- it was clear to see that she had had years of -- you know, just this unhealthy relationship between her and the state of Oregon when they came in. So, you know, I just had to build that trust up with her. But I just saw a loving environment. There was -- you know, they've got the same dog apparently for the last five years. There's really nothing going on, at all, that I discovered other than maybe they were depressed and, you know, that was -- that was the only thing that I could see. And obviously, if they had their children back, that depression would have lifted.

GLENN: Yeah.

SHERRENE: In the ten months I had worked with her after -- she's just. She's got her voice now. She's fighting. You know, she's -- she's really looking for more than an advocate. Because we live in a small town here. And that's been the hardest thing for me is, one, to speak out against Child Protective Services and care for my family. My stepdad is a lawyer and judge in town. And my mom has got a pretty high position. So I wanted to protect them. But also stand up for people that don't feel like they have a voice and they're not being heard. So I'm pretty much the lone star out here. (chuckles)

And their attorneys are representing them. But, you know, they all know each other here. So I know that they're not being fought for properly.

GLENN: So -- can you hang on just a second. I need to take a quick break. I'm going to come back after a commercial break. We'll continue our conversation.

[break]

GLENN: Welcome back to the program. We're talking about Amy Fabbrini, who the state has decided -- the state of Oregon that she does not have a high enough IQ to be able to have her two children. Her first child was taken from her after being fine in the home and living for two or three years with mom and dad. And her second child has just been taken from her at the hospital at birth. Go ahead, Amy. Did I get something wrong?

AMY: Yeah. Christopher was only in our home for like four days when CPS came and took him.

PAT: Wow.

GLENN: So, Amy, what is the thing -- talking to the mother, who, remember, is not smart enough to have her own children, according to the state of Oregon -- Amy, what caused this? Why did the state come over to your house? What was the complaint?

AMY: The initial complaint was that we had an ex-friend that was living with us. And they called CPS and reported that the father, Eric Ziegler, had been neglecting Christopher. He hadn't been picking up on his keys (phonetic). He wasn't cleaning him properly. And then there was also put in the report that he wasn't properly feeding our dog. That was the first report. And that's why CPS came in and took Christopher.

GLENN: Okay. And so the woman who came out -- Sherrene, you were the person that came out with that report?

SHERRENE: I am not the first person that came out with the initial report.

GLENN: Okay. And what did that first report say? That report took the child away?

SHERRENE: Yeah. The first report was called in supposedly by a roommate of theirs. And the second report was actually from Amy's father who was upset that she decided to move in with the father of her child.

GLENN: Okay.

SHERRENE: So they've just gone with that for, you know, the last almost four years now.

GLENN: Okay. Now, Sherrene, you have been with Amy over the last couple of years. You see her quite often, or not?

SHERRENE: Yes. So I was placed in the home as a volunteer. I gave my time. So I was placed in the home last May of 2016. And performed weekly visitations for three hours a piece with Amy, Eric, and their child Christopher.

GLENN: Over the last -- over the last year?

SHERRENE: So it was from May of 2016 until August of 2016, when their attorney asked for my -- my observations, because Child Protective Services was not releasing them. So --

GLENN: And, Amy, when was the birth date of your second child?

AMY: February 16th of 2017.

GLENN: February of 2017?

AMY: Yes. Yes.

GLENN: So, Amy, I have to ask you a tough question because this is what the people who are against you say, that you didn't know that you were pregnant until you had your child. And they find that unreasonable. It has happened before with people who are supposedly intelligent. But it is difficult to not know that you're not pregnant. Can you tell me about that. Is that true? What happened?

AMY: So that was with -- that was when I was -- I didn't know I was pregnant with Christopher. And I didn't. All I thought was -- because I have -- I have kidney issues. It's been passed down through my family. So when I was getting these -- when I was getting these pains in my side, I just thought it was my kidneys acting up. I had no indications that I was pregnant. I didn't have any movement or anything.

GLENN: And when you had no -- when you weren't having your period, is that normal for you?

AMY: Yes.

GLENN: And were you -- were you growing in size? Did you look pregnant?

AMY: No.

GLENN: Sherrene, can you help me out on that.

SHERRENE: Yeah. So, Amy's figure has just -- it's just always been the same ever since I met her actually. And when I came into the home last summer, she actually -- we didn't know at the time, but she was beginning, you know, her pregnancy for the second child. And she had stayed the same since the first time I've met her until today. She looks exactly the same. So -- and she just gave birth in February. How big are you? What is your size about?

GLENN: We don't have to get into that -- we don't have to get into that. Please.

AMY: It's something where you just -- you just can't -- you don't notice. It's just -- it's the way that she's built. But she did know she was pregnant with Hunter, the second child. And we discussed extensively about her coming forward. But they just had an incredible amount of fear that they would take their child. So --

GLENN: Which they did.

SHERRENE: Which they did, yeah.

GLENN: So your aunt, Amy, agrees with you and your husband and Sherrene, that --

AMY: Yes. She does.

GLENN: Your children are now up for adoption by the state.

AMY: Christopher is.

GLENN: How do you feel about that?

AMY: I don't feel it's right. He shouldn't be put up for adoption. He should be with us. It's completely wrong.

GLENN: Sherrene and Amy, how can we help you? Is there anything, first of all, that I've missed?

SHERRENE: Well, I would like to advocate that Amy and Eric have remained together. They live in a three-bedroom, two-bath home. It's owned by Eric's father. And they've taken extensive courses on parenting. What abuse and neglect looks like. Health and fitness. I mean, they are very proactive in showing the courts that they want to learn what they want them to learn. And that -- and they're proving to the courts and to everybody around here that they're very capable of learning. They're -- the IQ that is given, you know, is debatable anyway. That can be subject to depression, all kinds of things.

GLENN: Yes.

SHERRENE: But she's very articulate. They're very sweet. They're very kind. And what could help them is finding good representation to help them advocate for their rights to have their children. That is truly what we're looking for, for this family.

GLENN: How do they get in touch with you?

SHERRENE: They can go to either my website or they can contact me via email.

GLENN: Okay. Give me the information right now. Yeah.

SHERRENE: Okay. So my website is www.aktionnow.com. But it's spelled with a K. So it's A-K-T-I-O-N-N-O-W.com.

GLENN: Okay.

SHERRENE: And my email address is support@aktionnow.com.

GLENN: Sherrene, thank you for -- you know, you're in a small town, and you have apparently a very visible family. And it takes guts to stand up and to do it with class and grace. And it sounds like you're doing that. And God bless you for standing up.

Amy Fabbrini, we will not forget you, and we will further this story on any platform that I have to do with. And I will do everything I can to help you out. And I wish all of the best. And we'll talk to you again soon.

Back in just a second.

AMY: Thank you so much.

GLENN: God bless you.

[break]

GLENN: On a personal note, if you just joined us, we did an interview with a -- a mother of two children in -- in Oregon that have just been taken. One of them had been taken from them a few years ago. They have been fighting to get their child back. A -- a mother and father.

Father has a borderline on the higher end IQ of mental disability, 66. Mom has an IQ of 72. I don't know what you expected her to sound like. But she sounded perfectly normal to me.

She is a mother who loves her children. Sorry this is -- this hits close to home. I have a daughter with cerebral palsy who is a wonderful -- and would make the best mother ever.

(crying)

And I can't imagine what it would be like to have to defend your intelligence and to have everyone calling you stupid, when most likely, that's the way you have felt your whole life anyway. And all of the cruel remarks that probably came your way through your whole life, to now have a child and have it taken from you at the hospital, when there is no sign of abuse nor neglect, is an injustice that is beyond comprehension to me.

As I started this break, on a personal note, last night, I have these sweet women who -- who come to the studios. And they pray. And they pray for us. And they pray for me. And we're in my studios or office last night. We had a great conversation. And the last thing they said was, "What can we pray for, for you?"

And I said, "Two things." And I would like to ask you to pray for the second thing more than the first. But I said, "Empathy and courage."

We can't solve anything unless we can feel one another, unless we really have empathy for what people are going through, and we can stop seeing things through the prism of policies or even the Constitution. But start to feel where other people are.

I need more empathy for people. And I have been praying for that gift. But at the same time, I know that we will find things like Amy. And I need the courage and the -- the spine to be able to walk through it. And not because it's difficult, but because it's hard on the heart after a while.

And so if you would join us in -- in that prayer, I would appreciate it. I would appreciate it.

So what they're looking for is an attorney that can represent them. They're in a small town, and it sounds a little incestuous this town. No, I don't mean to speak ill of this town. I don't know anything about it. But we all know how small towns are and can be. And once people make their mind up about a person, it's hard to reverse that. I found very early on, the great joy, which in some ways, was so hard. And I didn't like it. Moving away from my family and my own hometown, you become that -- whatever people have known you as -- you know, I was -- you know, I -- to my sisters, I was their stinky little brother. And, you know, you -- you just grow up, and people have this image of you.

By going away, you can start fresh. And so I don't know Amy's story in this small little town and what they thought of Amy. But I know what the state worker thought when they went in and they found no abuse and no neglect. So we need somebody -- and would Kelly Shackelford -- would this be something -- he is, what? Is the Liberty Counsel? I mean, he does more religious freedom, but he might know somebody that could take on a case like this.

STU: Yeah, that would be interesting to hear. I mean, because there's a lot to this story. But if you back up for a second -- and I don't mean to get scientific, but it's like, this is just completely bonkers. Like this woman -- you expected to hear something completely different from that interview. At least I did. And I know that's totally judging a book by its cover, but...

GLENN: We never -- we had never talked to her before.

STU: No.

GLENN: Our phone screeners had never talked to her. Our producer had not talked to her.

STU: No.

GLENN: Talked to the mentor or the state advocate who was her state advocate until the state fired her. Talked to her. But we didn't -- I mean, I did not expect that conversation.

STU: It's similar to the Charlie Gard thing in a way, that, you know, there is a line you can find with a story like this. Where if they are so disabled that they can't do basic functions of life, there may be -- you know, there's an argument to have. This is not that case. I mean, she's smarter than 80 percent of the people I interact with on a daily basis.

GLENN: And they're taking parenting classes. And his parents are around. And they have help. And the -- the people are aware of them.

I mean, this is why you -- I mean, I will tell you, I feel like adopting their children and building a house next to mine and giving them the house and we would be the adoptive parents. But we would right next to them and they could keep the -- I mean, that's what families are supposed to do. Not state. That's what the family is supposed to do.

You have your child live close enough to where the grandparents help. You don't just take the children away. And, again, the state found no evidence of neglect.

STU: And it's important to note too, IQ is one of those things that has been beaten into our heads for decades and decades and decades as this actual measure of intelligence, that it has some level of accuracy to it. There's no real -- you cannot decipher. These are not accurate enough measures to decipher the difference between someone who has a 72 and a 78 IQ.

Listen. This is from a Canadian university. Dr. Adrian Owen did a huge study, the largest study ever on IQ and the accuracy of it. He was the senior investigator in the Canadian Excellent Research Chair in cognitive neuroscience and imaging at the university's Brain and Mind Institute. When we looked at the data, the bottom line is the whole concept of IQ or of you having a higher IQ than me is a myth. There is no such thing as a single measure of IQ or a measure of general intelligence.

And we're taking people's children away based on some random test they took on some day. Some number that has no real basis in science anyway. And just the sniff test here. You listen to this woman speak, and blatantly she has the intelligence to raise children.

How many people have you met in your life and you think, "Those people shouldn't have children?" This is not one of them. I mean, this is an absolute horror show. A complete outrage!

And how have we not heard more about this story? How does she not have the help that she needs? I mean, look, you may look deeper into this story and find something that indicates something different. But, I mean, so far, we have not found it. And I think just by -- on its face, you listen to that interview, if you heard that interview, I mean, there are times -- and you could not tell the difference if it was the mother or the mentor. Speaking.

GLENN: There was at least one time that that happened. I wanted to ask who is speaking.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: I could not tell the one who had their master's in -- what did she say it was? And the one who just graduated from high school. The one whose kids are being taken away because they're not smart enough and the one who has all the degrees and certificates to be hired and sent in by the state to do family counseling and observations. I mean, when you can't tell the difference between the two, there's a problem.

STU: And do we live in a country in which the state decides whether they'll allow you to have your children? Or do we live in a country in which they're your children and with only the most incredible exceptions and incredible circumstances would the state even consider stepping into -- into a parent/child relationship. That is the country we're supposed to live in. And if we live in -- I mean, I know Oregon is a lot different than other states. And maybe this wouldn't happen in other states. I don't know. But this is a complete outrage, on its face.

GLENN: So here's what I want to say to you: Have you -- my aunt was -- she married an abuser. And he wasn't abusing her at first. Not physically. Before they got married. Mentally, he was. My grandfather spotted him a mile away. And all the way down the aisle, my aunt told me, my dad, I thought at the time just wrecked my ceremony. Because grandpa was walking her down the aisle and said, "Please. Please, Joanne, don't do this. Please, don't do this. Please, don't marry him. Please turn around right now and come with me. Please, I'm your father. I'm begging you."

And she said, "Dad, stop it." When they got to the end of the aisle, he kissed her on the cheek and said, "I will always be your father. And I will always be there. But I cannot be there to watch my daughter be abused. When you are done, you let me know."

And he gave her to this abuser. She would come over to my grandfather's house from time to time with a black eye or whatever. And she would come crying to my grandmother, her mother. And grandpa would answer the door. And his heart would break. And he would look at her, and he would hug her. And she would cry. And then he would look at her and say, "Are you done yet?" She'd say, "Dad, no. You don't -- he stopped listening. And he would walk away. And grandma would spend the time.

Until that time came when she came home and said, "Dad, I'm done" -- we never saw the abuser again. He went away. And they had a very easy divorce.

I think it involved my grandfather and the man who became my uncle and her husband later showing up at his door with a shotgun or two, but I could be wrong. But here's why I tell you that story: Are you done yet? Are you done yet? Are we done arguing politics? Are we done making that the center of our universe? Because I'm done. I'm so done.

That's not getting us anywhere. This, we can make a difference on. This, we can do. This is a noble cause. This is something we should be spending our time on.

I'll pick this up tomorrow. But today, I just want to ask you that question. Are you done yet?

If you are, when you are, let me know. Because we have to focus on other things.

RADIO

Maryland Governor wants MORE gerrymandering instead of THIS?!

Democratic Maryland governor Wes Moore is now saying that he wants to gerrymander his own state's congressional districts (despite Republicans only holding ONE seat) to fight Texas' redistricting efforts. But Glenn Beck has a simpler answer to this whole debate - and it stems from Moses.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Gerrymandering started by -- Stu, can you look this up, for me?

Is it Elbridge Gerry or Gerry? I always thought it was Elbridge Gerry.

STU: Yeah, you're remembering that right.

GLENN: It is?

STU: Yeah, it is Elbridge Gerry. There's a weird quirk basically in American history, where his name was Elbridge Gerry. It was first called gerrymandering essentially in a newspaper, at the time. People read the newspaper, didn't know how to pronounce his name. Started saying "gerrymandering," and that's what stuck. So it was actually different than the way his name was pronounced, even though it was named after him.

GLENN: Yeah. Well, that's why you spell your name G-A-R-Y, not G-E-R-R-Y. Hello!

STU: Lesson learned.

GLENN: Yes, so gerrymandering is when a salamander-shaped district gave America a new word, and a new really bad habit. Okay? And we have perfected this really bad habit.

It -- it started about 18- -- yeah, about 1818, 1850, some- -- someplace around there, and it wasn't known as gerrymandering, until the mid-1800s when everybody was doing it. Now, here's how bad it has gotten: Today, in Massachusetts, one-third of the voters choose a Republican. But not one of the nine House seats. They can choose it for president. But they -- one-third vote for Republicans. But because of the way they have the map set up, you don't get any House seats. So a third of the population has zero representation.

And not because they didn't show up. But because the lines chose first. In, Illinois, pretty much the same situation. Forty-seven percent of voters cast a ballot for Republicans in 2024. Forty-seven percent. Now, why do we all think that Illinois is so far left in Congress? Why?

Because 47 percent, they must get their choice. Forty-seven percent of the voters cast a ballot for Republicans in 2024. And they got 17 percent of the seats! Now, that's -- that's magical. There's -- there's some magical forces making that happen. Okay? Now, you see competition. Now you don't! Maryland.

The courts called one map an extreme partisan gerrymander. Why?

Well, because there's only one Republican serving in Maryland. Only one.

Now, how is that possible? Because you know there are people that live in Maryland. Only one of the -- the House seats go to a Republican? One?

Come on! Now, here's the latest. The governor now says, all options are on the table. This is the governor of Maryland. We just played this clip. Can you play it again, please?

VOICE: Are you actively looking at it now?

VOICE: Yes. And I think we have to.

VOICE: You are?

VOICE: Because I think what's happening is this is what people hate about politics in the first place. The fact that the President of the United States, very similar to what he did in Georgia, where he called up a series of voter registrants and said, I need you to find me more votes. We're watching the same thing now where he's calling up legislatures around the country and saying, I need you to find me more congressional districts.

VOICE: He's doing it. That may be different. But Democrats redistrict. You know this. But Gavin Newsom is doing it right now, a few years ago in New York. We saw this. This can be backfire.
Do you really want to go down this road?

VOICE: I want to make sure that we have fair lines and fair seats. Where we don't have situations where politicians are choosing voters, but that voters have a chance to choose their elected officials.

We need to be able to have fair maps, and we also need to make sure that if the president of the United States is putting his finger on the scale to try to manipulate elections, because he knows that his policies cannot win in a ballot box.

GLENN: Okay. So stop.

If you -- if you don't know anything about Maryland, you would be like, well, that's reasonable.

And most people don't know anything about Maryland. Okay. That's reasonable. He just wants fair maps and fair lines. Okay. If you really wanted the people to pick, you wouldn't -- it's mathematically impossible in Illinois.

It's mathematically impossible in Massachusetts. And in Maryland, to have the representation for the G.O.P. that they have.

It's math mat -- Massachusetts has zero Republicans in the House!

Zero, in the whole state!

Zero.

Maryland, only has one. And then he says, well, I might have to redistrict.

To get rid of the one?

One place, where -- where a Republican won. And you want to redistrict that, out of existence?

That doesn't seem fair, to me.

Right?

Okay. This isn't a blue problem. It's not a red problem. It is a power problem. And it has been happening almost since the founding of the country. And it's got to stop. Now, in 2019, the Supreme Court had a decision. Said, the courts aren't going to interfere. And they won't referee partisan gerrymandering.

Well, that was a message that was sent to everybody, very clear. Do what you -- do what you want. The raw what you can. Draw what you can get real estate with. And so they did!

Now, in Texas. This all started in Texas. Which, by the way, the -- the senses.

These are all based on the census, or they're supposed to be. But for the very first time, the 2020 census was rigged, and then it was not fair.

When you have Texas. Think of this. Just think -- I want you to think of this logically. Texas in -- what was it? 2020. Texas in 2020 had lost people? Or had not gained any citizens?

What planet are you living in?

Texas is growing by leaps and bounds, as it was in 2015. 2010.

You're telling me, nothing!

Nothing!

No new growth.

Wow! That's amazing.

So Texas is trying to correct this problem. Where they fix the census.

Okay.

Now, the left is shouting, this is crazy!

I can't believe they're doing -- it's an arms race of hypocrisy.

It really is. It really is.

Which one could launch the biggest hypocritical missile.

I'm not sure. I can just tell you, this ends -- it ends where legitimacy ends. When -- when somebody will look up in one of these states and say, this is -- and with -- with real facts on their side. That -- that's not -- that's not representative of me. The House of Representatives. That's not representative of my district and my state. You can draw a district any way you want. You know, cut us all apart so you -- you can't have a Republican in. You've been doing that forever.

Here's the thing: Safe seats. That's what everybody wants. A safe seat. Safe seats do not create better leaders. They create unaccountable leaders. Let me say that again: Safe seats do not create better leaders. They create unaccountable leaders. Why?

Because a safe seat doesn't reward persuasion.

You don't have to persuade anybody. They reward purity tests. This is why we have become so incredibly extreme. It's why -- everybody wonders why the center feels like it's collapsing. You know, every -- every compromise feels like a betrayal. Because you're not dealing with people. You're dealing with people who are extremes. Okay?

So what do we do? Well, there's a couple of solutions. One independent map-making. Yeah. That's going to work. Put the pens in the citizen's hands. Oh, good. Michigan. Arizona. California.

They have shown independent or court-drawn maps. Reduced extremes. And increased competition. Okay.

Maybe. California. Has an independent committee. This was passed by the people voted for. People were like, you know what, we want fair! We want fair districts. Okay. But at the first time of trouble. They'll violate that, as you're seeing with California.

You have the governor of California coming out. We will redraw all of them. Because they don't care about the voices of the people in those districts. They care about the Democrat voice in Congress.

So the governor is going around it. And it will only be stopped if the people of California stand up. Are they going to?

I don't know.

Now, if we don't solve this at the local and state level, believe me, there are going to be people in Congress that want to change the rules. And the left is already working on it.

It's called the fair representation act. Stu, they already have an act. It's the Fair Representation Act.

STU: I like fair representation.

GLENN: Right! It's about representation, and it's going to be fair.

See what could go wrong with this. They just reintroduced it this summer. It would use independent commissions. Multi-member districts. And ranked choice voting for the House.

Oh! Ranked choice voting? What could possibly go wrong with ranked choice voting. Why is that a problem, Stu?

STU: Well, currently, the Democrats really love rank choice voting. Because it's benefited them, mostly.

And that's just a small part of that particular act. But basically, you know, if you -- you know, unless the other -- the other team is smart enough to actually understand the rules of it. Which so far, the Republicans have not been, they will nominate people that will split their own vote. And you will wind up with someone who is the -- not the majority candidate, wound up winning the seat.

GLENN: Yeah. Really bad idea. Really bad idea.

So may I make a suggestion on how we fix this?

And I would like to base this on Moses.

Moses already did this. Okay? He divided people in hundreds and 50s and tens. Let me -- let me call -- let me just -- I want you to think of the United States under one big tent. Okay? One big tent. Let's say we look at the United States as a big block. And we want to put everybody under a tent. But we can't put them under one big, big tent.

So let's say we put them in tents of 100. Or a thousand.

Or 5,000.

And we think of the map, as you have to have a tent, over these people.

All right. Well, I know we have four corners.

And we put a steak in the ground. And those four corners, we build a tent.

And then we build a tent right next to that one, that holds the same amount of people, and we put four steaks in the ground, and we build another tent. In other words, each district has to have four straight lines. Just like a tent. It's just a box. Okay? It could be a rectangle. However you want to design it, that is fine. But it's just a box. And when that box becomes too full, you split it in half. And now it becomes two boxes, and you keep splitting them, until they're more and more boxes. The more the population grows, the more boxes there are. Okay?
It's really easy. Do you know what that would do? It could mean that in some districts, a couple of apartment buildings, not snaked all the way around the city and into the countryside. But a few apartment buildings in New York City, right in a four-block area, that might be a district.

What does that do? That means the people who are representing the people in that apartment complex, the -- that four-block radius. He has to know that four-block area. That's his deal. He's not sneaking around, going around everywhere else. He knows those people. He represents just those people. Not people five blocks away. Just maybe four blocks away.

And four blocks in each direction. That way, you don't have these people who don't have any idea, they don't look like you. I mean, as far as the way you vote. They don't look -- vote like you do. They don't -- they're -- they're not some sort of foreigner from a different area of town. They know what your issues are.

If we did that, and we made everything in just squares, you would -- you would localize much more. In a much better way. But you would also stop all the extremes. Because unless everybody in that four-block radius is an extremist, an extremist isn't going to win. An extremist Republican. Extremist tell me. Extremists aren't going to win. Because most people aren't like that. That's why the gerrymandering thing happens. Because you can have people on one side of the street in one district, people on the other side of the street, in another district, and then it snakes up four blocks, and then it makes a hard left. Then it goes straight up for another street, then there's a big bubble at the top of it, where a whole bunch of blocks are included. That makes no sense. That's making a safe seat.
Again, safe seats do not -- do not reward anything! They create extremism.

RADIO

Trump’s Intel gamble: Smart Capitalism or Socialist trap?

President Trump has announced a deal to buy a 10% stake in computer chip maker Intel. Is this a smart business move that will make the US government money to pay off its debt, or is it just another unconstitutional public-private partnership? Glenn and Stu discuss ...

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: I would love to open -- openly embrace the -- you know, on the surface, there's a new deal with Intel.

And it sounds really smart. And it sounds like, yeah. That's the way we should do business.

It sounds capitalist. It sounds patriotic. But then, again, so did the Patriot Act.

So here's what's happening. Donald Trump is taking $8.9 billion. Money already set aside by the Chips Act. And instead of handing to Intel as a grant, he bought stock in Intel.

Now, that sounds really smart. Right? Sounds like what a businessman would do. Really smart. I'm not going to just give them the money, we'll invest. And that way, we get some profits, when they succeed. So we now own 10 percent of the company. Nonvoting shares. We got it at a discount, and we have $2 billion now worth of paper gains.

I love that! Right? It sounds really good. Why aren't we running this place more like a business? It's pro-capitalist, right? No more government giveaways. Taxpayers are investors. And we benefit when Intel rebounds. Okay. Any other things? Well, yeah. It's really important for national security. We're keeping chip manufacturing at home. We stabilize the economy, without running it. We reassure the markets, and attract other private investors. On paper. It's really good. It's clean. It's efficient. It's savvy.

Now, what is it that's bothering me? Well, it's not exactly the American system. In fact, it might be everything we're not supposed to do. You know, we were never -- government was never supposed to use our taxpayer dollars to be a shareholder in private enterprise.

But, again, we're doing all kinds of things that we've already gone there. Haven't we?

Hasn't the government picked winners and loses now forever?

Haven't they been wasting your money. I would rather extend them a grant. I would rather have it in stock. So if we win, we win. No. We all win. But that's actually the model of state capitalism in China. That's not the free market in the United States. Intel is vital. Absolutely vital. Chips are the lifeblood of anything that will happen for national security. And our economy.

But we cannot get into the habit of -- of -- we can't normalize it anyway.

Washington, DC, buying stock in struggling companies.

Because what's next. Ford? Boeing?

How about your grocery stores?

That's Mamdani, isn't it?

And once that door opens, government no longer just regulates the market. They own a piece of it, now.

What happens after we own a piece of that?

So in 2008, I had a big sponsor.

It was a sponsor that Premiere Radio networks had worked 20 years to get.

We finally landed them. And I had a good working relationship with them.

It was General Motors.

And then the government bailed them out. In 2008. And they promised it was temporary. And I said, great! Call me back, once you've paid them off. I don't -- I don't like this. The government should not be involved.

But they were not going to be involved.

But they were

The first thing they did. Was they cancelled the hydrogen car. Something they really believed right before the election. I know. Because I was talking to him about it all the time. And then after the election, Barack Obama cancels all hydrogen products. And GM was like, yeah, that stupid hydrogen thing. We're with them.

And the precedent was set. And I was out. I was out. I cancelled General Motors. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.

Business-wise, stupid. Ethically, the right thing to do. And ever since, whenever there's a crisis, that temptation is there. Why not just buy a slice of the company? Why not stabilize it? Make a little profit on it? And that's how you slip to capitalism to corporatism. You know, free markets backed by government winners and losers.

You do not want to go down this road. You know, when we are both the investor and the regulator, which one wins.

Come on!

Not a hard question to answer. Which one wins? Not the regulator. The investor wins. If the investor is also the regulator, look, if we do this, we will make a lot of money, you're going to make a lot of money. You'll have more money for all these projects you want. Okay. All right. Okay.

It's -- it's not -- the taxpayers aren't the one. The company -- the politicians, who really wins? What happens when an administration leans on its own company, for political purposes?

You know what, I think you'll get rid of that hydrogen car. We love the hydrogen car. You know what, I think you'll get rid of that hydrogen car. We hate that hydrogen car. Boy, we hate it.

He -- Donald Trump looks at Intel losing $8.8 billion last year. Lays off 20,000 workers.

Choke hold of Taiwan, South Korea on semi conductors. He wants America protected.

He wants taxpayers to share the upside.

He doesn't want to just bear the cost. We should get the upside. All of those things are good, right?

It's really tempting. But is it what we're supposed to do. Is it the right thing?

I don't like it when Washington holds stock certificates. Not a good thing. It should be reforming taxes. Cutting red tape. Letting capital flow to strong ideas. Making sure national security is cured through policy, but not ownership of these things.

Are you comfortable if the United States just took over AI, or just took it over and said, we're just going to own 10 percent? Oh, they need another bailout. We're just going to own 20 percent. Oh, they need another bailout. Okay. We're going to own 40 percent of that. Do you think that that company wouldn't become beholden to the United States government? And who are they beholden to? The Defense Department? The Deep State? The president, or you?

I think you know the answer to that one. Stu, how do you work around this one. Because I love this idea. I love the fact that we're running things like a business. And if we're giving people loans, why not take a stake? Why not?

STU: Well, first of all, can we step back one little bit and just acknowledge that the original sin here, in the first place, was the Chips Act. The Chips Act was not a good bill in the first place.

And that's not the president -- the current president's fault.

But, you know, he has to live under that law.

And he's trying to improve it. But like, that was a disaster in the first place. And should not have been something that we did, certainly the way that we did it.

With buying into this. Look, I understand, it is better to have some of this money. That, by the way, we're just borrowing and printing anyway. Right?

These are taxpayer dollars that we don't really have. That we're spending on something. That it's good that potentially we have a return. I mean, this was the argument under TARP as well. Where we would go and do all of this. And take control of some of these banks and companies. And they would eventually pay us back. And many of them did, by the way. Many of them did pay us back.

GLENN: With interest. With interest.

STU: Yeah, exactly. And so why not?

Why didn't we do that? We have done it from time to time. Normally, it's been in extreme circumstances. Right? When there's an emergency going on. And I would acknowledge, and I think you were on this, as well, Glenn.

These were not things that we supported at the time. But they were things that the government did at the time. What they saw as a time of financial crisis. And reached in, and took ownership of a bunch of companies.

GLENN: I would say, we went further than not being for them.

STU: I would agree with that analysis.

GLENN: Very much against them.

STU: Very much against them.

The reason for that is: We don't want the government involved in -- you know, jumping into companies and micromanaging companies.

Now, they will say, voting rights.

They will say all sorts of things. We now have a situation where the president of the United States has an interesting interest in Intel's stock price. And like, I know that --

GLENN: Money does not talk, it screams. It's a bad idea. It's a bad idea.

Once the government becomes your partner in business. They're always your partner. Always.

STU: Uh-huh. And I understand where the president is coming from.

Because it -- at some level, it really is important to acknowledge, he's been put in this position to try to make the best out of a bad thing.

Now, I know, you know, the president does really care about the chips. And he does care about these industries, being here in the United States.

That is a -- something that is actually legitimately important. I'm not denying that.

GLENN: Right. He also cares about America doing well, financially. He's tired of America getting screwed. The taxpayers getting screwed every time.

STU: But on that point, because I get what he's saying there. It would be great. Like, we're up a couple billion dollars. Let's say we double our profit. Let's say we make 10 billion dollars off the deal. Nothing wrong with making $10 billion.

Let's acknowledge what this is, though. We have $37 trillion in debt. Making $10 billion does absolutely nothing to this. Nothing.

We're going to waste that -- like, we could just instead, be -- we could have someone actually look at the next spending bill we have. And just cut a few things around the corner, and easily save $10 billion.

It -- the only way that this makes any impact. And this is what makes me nervous. Is if you do it at scale. If you start doing this, in every single company you can think of, that is having problems. Or is in an industry of interest to the United States of America. Then you start getting to a place to where the government is in bed with lots of businesses. And maybe you can make a financial impact. And if we accept this argument now, I'm afraid we accept it then too.

GLENN: But how do we already accept it -- when America embraced public/private partnerships. I haven't accepted that.

I don't -- I'm dead-set against public -- but isn't this a public/private partnership. This is what they were pushing.

STU: Well, this is the concern, right?

Who is cheering this on?

Bernie Sanders. Bernie Sanders put the -- he actually had this idea, as an amendment, in the Chips Act.

This was his proposal.

He's cheering it on right now. I -- that doesn't mean that every -- you know, everything a Democrat brings up is the wrong idea.

Maybe this was a good one.

You can make that argument.

GLENN: Is he a Democrat or a socialist?

STU: Socialist please. Socialist.

GLENN: So everything a socialist brings up. Probably is fine.

STU: Yeah. Again, it's a road, we should really, really be careful going down.

I would argue, we shouldn't go down it. At his lead to bad things. And it leads to bad things, by the way, when this president is long gone.

It's not just him.

You know, what -- I know we say this all the time. What are Democrats going to do, with this newfound ability to invest in companies?

And -- and, by the way, we should note, Intel doesn't need to accept this. Right? This is -- the Chips Act doesn't require them to sell part of the company. What's happening here is we're pressuring them into this.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

STU: And, you know, I -- I understand the reasoning for that. You brought up really good arguments on this front. We're already suckered into giving these -- these companies money because of the Chips Act. Why not make the situation better?

And Intel is saying, well, they can make our lives miserable. In 25 different ways. Let's partner with them.

I get it on both sides.

That doesn't mean it should be a foundational part of our economy going forward. And, you know, if this is a one time thing. It probably won't be a big deal. If this is a precedent that goes on. It can be.

GLENN: It will be.

Once you start this. Once you start this.

And how long. My whole life, I said, I wish we had a businessman as the president. I wish we had somebody that would look at the country and look at everything. And go, how can we make money?
How can we save money? Let's run this a tighter ship. Well, he's doing that.

Although, we're spending more money.

And he's here. Here he's like, well, let's just offset.

Let's get -- yeah. And he might pick the winner. I don't know if he will or not. But he might -- but tell me the last president that we had, that ever said anything about industry, that you were like, oh, you know what, that was a really good stock tip. No! No!

STU: He would be the guy.

GLENN: Yeah. He would be the one, I think in my lifetime, for sure. Maybe the lifetime of the country.

RADIO

Glenn exposes the DARK truth behind AI 'friendship'

Mark Zuckerberg and Big Tech want you to believe that AI can be your “friend.” But Glenn Beck reveals the chilling truth: these bots aren’t here to connect with you... they’re here to control you. From social media addiction to mental health crises, we’ve already seen what “connection” platforms have done to our families and children. Now, AI is at its next stage where it's smarter, more personal, and far more dangerous. Glenn warns that this isn’t just about privacy or data. It’s about your soul. Real friendship is sacrifice, loyalty, and love. AI offers only a hollow imitation all while whispering lies in your ear...

Watch This FULL Clip from Glenn Beck's Radio Show HERE

Glenn's Show Prep

Heartbreaking: Glenn Sheds Tears With Mother Whose Children Were Taken by the State

Glenn Beck's MUST-SEE Takedown of Zohran Mamdani

Maryland Governor wants MORE gerrymandering instead of THIS?!

Transcript

Transcript